Tucker here is taking the Keynesian's corner with Shapiro taking Smith's corner. Generally I lean towards Smith but Tucker here makes a pretty good case for a Keynesian approach which makes me more sympathetic, if not actually swayed, to a Keynesian approach over a Smithian. The context of course is the next great economic wave which is already upon us with the emergence of ubiquitous and non-human intelligences competitive with humans, AI as it is called.

Rancid wrote:I think the idea of fighting/restricting technology simply doesn't work. We're better off using UBI to support those truckers once their jobs are gone.

That might not be such a bad idea but I think it is tricky on human dignity. A lot of people dislike to be the recipient of charity because it makes them feel like a massive loser. UBI will be more saleable if it is framed as a citizen's dividend or something like that.

SolarCross wrote:That might not be such a bad idea but I think it is tricky on human dignity. A lot of people dislike to be the recipient of charity because it makes them feel like a massive loser. UBI will be more saleable if it is framed as a citizen's dividend or something like that.

SolarCross wrote:Tucker here is taking the Keynesian's corner with Shapiro taking Smith's corner. Generally I lean towards Smith but Tucker here makes a pretty good case for a Keynesian approach which makes me more sympathetic, if not actually swayed, to a Keynesian approach over a Smithian. The context of course is the next great economic wave which is already upon us with the emergence of ubiquitous and non-human intelligences competitive with humans, AI as it is called.

Have you read Adam Smith? What is it about Adam Smith that leads you to believe that Keynes and Smith form some kind of dialectical pairing of polar opposites?

Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.

quetzalcoatl wrote:Have you read Adam Smith? What is it about Adam Smith that leads you to believe that Keynes and Smith form some kind of dialectical pairing of polar opposites?

They aren't polar opposites. Really there is not that much between them but Keynes was around during the Great Recession and that nudged him towards interventionist thinking. Smith stands for a relatively free civilian lead economy and Keynes stands for a relatively regulated bureaucrat lead economy.

AI is going to shake things up a lot and be really disruptive, so there is going to be people like Tucker looking for government to wade in with some interventions and there are going to be people like Shapiro who will think the government will bungle the interventions and it wasn't really necessary anyway because the invisible hand would do better. What else is there?

SolarCross wrote:They aren't polar opposites. Really there is not that much between them but Keynes was around during the Great Recession and that nudged him towards interventionist thinking. Smith stands for a relatively free civilian lead economy and Keynes stands for a relatively regulated bureaucrat lead economy.

AI is going to shake things up a lot and be really disruptive, so there is going to be people like Tucker looking for government to wade in with some interventions and there are going to be people like Shapiro who will think the government will bungle the interventions and it wasn't really necessary anyway because the invisible hand would do better. What else is there?

Free market economies don't actually exist. Heavy state intervention was both de facto and de jure required to bring about the corporate-controlled oligarchy now in effect. The reason for this is obvious (at least to me). Absence of state regulation does equate to open transparent markets. Indeed, lack of regulation leads inevitably to stratified and ossified markets controlled by a small number of individuals.

What AI will do is (potentially) make whatever form of economic organization we choose more efficient. If we choose a centralized command economy based on WWII, it will facilitate that model. If we choose a centralized command market economy, well we already have that - but AI can make it operate more efficiently. If we choose a free market model, we have to realize it's now impossible given our current legal constraints. We would need extensive legal reform to allow a Hayekian distributed market system room to operate; once implemented, AI could play a role optimising it.

Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.

quetzalcoatl wrote:Free market economies don't actually exist. Heavy state intervention was both de facto and de jure required to bring about the corporate-controlled oligarchy now in effect. The reason for this is obvious (at least to me). Absence of state regulation does equate to open transparent markets. Indeed, lack of regulation leads inevitably to stratified and ossified markets controlled by a small number of individuals.

I did say "relatively". You are wrong about a "lack of regulation" leading to "stratified" etc because such things can only be created through legislation and certainly require enforcement. You are basically arguing for the Corn Laws but using the arguments of those against them, which is weird to say the least. If you like mercantilism, subsidies for political favourites paid for by raiding those unfavoured by the political elite and legal monopolies maybe you shouldn't use the arguments of those that oppose such things.

quetzalcoatl wrote:What AI will do is (potentially) make whatever form of economic organization we choose more efficient. If we choose a centralized command economy based on WWII, it will facilitate that model. If we choose a centralized command market economy, well we already have that - but AI can make it operate more efficiently. If we choose a free market model, we have to realize it's now impossible given our current legal constraints. We would need extensive legal reform to allow a Hayekian distributed market system room to operate; once implemented, AI could play a role optimising it.

No one with any brains or humanity would choose "centralised command economy" unless they had a world war to fight, even then it probably would be no better for the war effort than a regular economy, regardless at present it does not seem like any world wars are going to appear for just for you.

Legal constraints are mostly air and noise the more legal they are the less they constrain in fact because people just lose respect for it when it multiplies beyond comprehension and reason, even those who soak up a salary to enforce it lose respect and so corruption multiplies. The time probably has come for tidying up the cess pit.

Perhaps we could profitably partition the debate into a discussion of the comparative theoretical soundness of two [Ed.: or more,] economic theories and a separate discussion of what economic 'system' is actually possible [Ed.: if any,] given our Federal legislative/administrative composition.

Torus34 wrote:Perhaps we could profitably partition the debate into a discussion of the comparative theoretical soundness of two [Ed.: or more,] economic theories

Theories are often based on factual assumptions that can be correct or incorrect, and might change over time. For example, Smith considered money to be precious metal specie coins issued by the Mint at a cost comparable to their face value, while today it is almost all electronic ledger entries created by private commercial banks at effectively zero cost. Big difference.

and a separate discussion of what economic 'system' is actually possible [Ed.: if any,] given our Federal legislative/administrative composition.

Sounds good. People who live in other countries probably don't know or care much what economic measures the Supremes might consider constitutional, which is also subject to change.

SolarCross wrote:That might not be such a bad idea but I think it is tricky on human dignity.

Also justice, liberty, and motivation. People only have a right to the things they would have if others did not deprive them of them, mainly life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor. That lets out a right to income, which would have to be provided by others' labor. So restoring people's liberty to access economic opportunity without having to pay landowners just for permission to do so would be better than just giving everyone money. Also, a right to access opportunity can't be lost, stolen, or squandered the way money can. Besides, if people get a UBI, landowners will just charge them that much more for permission to access shopping, education, medical care, public services and infrastructure, social and relationship opportunities, etc., even if they don't want to access employment or business opportunities.

A lot of people dislike to be the recipient of charity because it makes them feel like a massive loser. UBI will be more saleable if it is framed as a citizen's dividend or something like that.

Or compensation for the forcible removal of their rights to liberty and conversion of those rights into the private property of landowners and other privileged interests. But restoration of the individual rights to liberty that landowning and other privileges removed would be even more salable, IMO. No one likes paying taxes, and many would object to paying taxes to fund UBI for others, even if they also got it themselves. But people like being exempt from taxes, and don't mind others getting an exemption as long as they get the same exemption themselves.

"only 12% of death certificates have shown a direct causality from coronavirus, while 88% of patients who have died have at least one pre-morbidity - many two or three." - Professor Walter Ricciardi, Director of the Department of Public Health

Hayek argued that society “should” (for both consequential and moral reasons) have a guaranteed minimum standard of living for its citizens:

"There is no reason why in a society which has reached the general level of wealth which ours has attained the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom. …. [T]here can be no doubt that some minimum of food, shelter, and clothing, sufficient to preserve health and the capacity to work, can be assured to everybody. … Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individual in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision.

Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance – where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks – the case for the state’s helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong.

There are many points of detail where those wishing to preserve the competitive system and those wishing to supercede it by something different will disagree on the details of such schemes; and it is possible under the name of social insurance to introduce measures which tend to make competition more or less ineffective. But there is no incompatability in principle between the state’s providing greater security in this way and the preservation of individual freedom.

To the same category belongs also the increase of security through the state’s rendering assistance to the victims of such ‘acts of God’ as earthquakes and floods. Wherever communal action can mitigate disasters against which the individual can neither attempt to guard himself nor make provision for the consequences, such communal action should undoubtedly be taken.

There is, finally, the supremely important problem of combating general fluctuations of economic activity and the recurrent waves of large-scale unemployment which accompany them. This is, of course, one of the gravest and most pressing problems of our time." (F. A. Hayek, Road to Serfdom, 1944, Pages 148-149)

"only 12% of death certificates have shown a direct causality from coronavirus, while 88% of patients who have died have at least one pre-morbidity - many two or three." - Professor Walter Ricciardi, Director of the Department of Public Health